In Mexicali, a haven for broken lives

An article in the Los Angeles Times titled “A Heaven for broken lives” is really meant to stir my sympathy for people who have broken our immigration laws. The article details stories of deported Mexicans who entered the United States illegally and subsequently committed crimes. The article was extended for an additional two pages and the print version included supporting photography.

The laws may be flawed but they are in place because a majority in the congress voted them into practice. The current administration has even tried to show empathy by not fully enforcing the law and only deporting those who commit crimes.

The error in our law enforcement is that employers of illegal aliens are rarely punished. Rigorous enforcement of current laws would end this tragic situation. “Bleeding hearts” in America will use this article as proof of our misguided legal system.

I don’t blame those who try to sneak into the country. I would do the same thing if I was living in a poor Latin American country. I blame our government for not enforcing the law.

GDP and Unemployment Performing Poorly – Welcome President Romney

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 1.9 percent in the first quarter of 2012 over the previous quarter. That is a revision from a preliminary 2.2% estimate. Historically, from 1947 until 2012, the United States GDP Growth Rate averaged 3.3 Percent reaching an all time high of 17.2 Percent in March of 1950 and a record low of -10.4 Percent in March of 1958.

During the great recession GDP fell to -8.9%.

At the present time the economy appears to be back sliding.

Can the government really impact the growth of the economy? Most of us seem to believe the answer is yes. Barack Obama will be blamed for the situation.

Unless Mr. Obama can convince a majority that things will be worse if Romney is elected he will be a one term president.

Political Party In Power Makes No Difference

It was the late 1960s. I really didn’t start paying attention to politics until I joined the Beverly Hills Young Democrats. I didn’t join because of a party loyalty. I joined because it was a singles group with lots of attractive young women. Despite my wish to stay non-partisan that club did impact my views on a host of subjects.

In all the ensuing years from LBJ to Barack Obama the one thing that has been consistent is the promises by the candidates that things would be better for Americans if they won the office. The reality is that nothing did get better. The cost of living went sky-high from those early days, most women had to go back to work after having children to sustain their life style, and the rich became ever more wealthy. Even worse, factory jobs were sent overseas making the fight for the remaining decent jobs even harder.

So why should I care who is elected in November? We have two wealthy people who will be protecting the system we have. Ross Perot was correct when he predicted “the sucking sound” of lost jobs if NAFTA becomes law. Today most of the products you buy were made elsewhere. Today when you call for service from some of America’s biggest companies you find yourself speaking to someone in India, the Philippines, or elsewhere in the Far East.

I don’t hear either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama saying he has a plan to return those “ordinary jobs” to America. No, they simply tell us how they will make things better using generalities about how bad the opponent is and how that opponent will only make things worse.

So whether it’s Barack Obama or Mitt Romney who wins, nothing will really change.

Echoes of 1967: Israel is preparing to act

An important commentary by Charles Krauthammer . If he is correct, Netanyahu has sent a message to Obama.

David Bancroft

—

IN May 1967, in brazen violation of previous truce agreements, Egypt ordered U.N. peacekeepers out of the Sinai, marched 120,000 troops to the Israeli border, blockaded Eilat (Israel’s southern outlet to the world’s oceans), abruptly signed a military pact With Jordan and, together with Syria, pledged war for the final destruction of Israel.

May 1967 was Israel’s most fearful, desperate month. The country was surrounded and alone. Previous great-power guarantees proved worthless. A plan to test the blockade with a Western flotilla failed for lack of participants. Time was running out. Forced to protect against invasion by mass mobilization – and with a military consisting overwhelmingly of civilian reservists – life ground to a halt. The country was dying.

On June 5, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on the Egyptian air force, then proceeded to lightning victories· on three fronts. The Six-Day War is legend, but less remembered is that on June 1, the nationalist opposition (Menachem Begin’s Likud precursor) was for the first time ever brought into the government, creating an emergency national-unity coalition.

Everyone understood why. You do not undertake a supremely risky pre-emptive war without the full participation of a broad coalition representing a national consensus.

Forty-five years later, in the middle of the night ·of May 7-8, 2012, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shocked his country by bringing the main opposition party, Kadima, into a national unity government. Shockking because just hours earlier, the Knesset was expediting a bill to call early elections in September.

Why did the high-flying Netanyahu call off elections he was sure to win(

Because for Israelis today, it is May 1967. “The dread is not quite as acute: The mood is not despair, just foreboding. Time is running out, but not quite as fast. War is not four days away, but it looms. Israelis today face the greatest threat to their existence – ‘apocalyptic .mullahs publicly pledged to Israel’s annihilation acquiring nuclear weapons – since May 1967. The world is again telling Israelis to do nothing as it looks for a way out. But if such a way is not found – as in 1967 – Israelis know they will once again have to defend themselves, by themselves.

Such a fateful decision demands a national consensus. By creating the largest coalition in nearly three decades, Netanyahu is establishing the political premise for a pre-emptive strike, should it come to that. The new government commands an astonishing 94 Knesset seats out of 120, described by one Israeli columnist as a “hundred tons of solid concrete.”

So much for the recent media hype about some great domestic resistance to Netanyahu’s hard line on Iran. Two notable retired intelligence figures were widely covered here for coming out against him. Little noted was that one had been passed over by Netanyahu to be the head of Mossad, while the other had been fired by Netanyahu as Mossad chief (hence the job opening). For centrist Kadima·(it pulled Israel out of Gaza) to join a Likud-led coalition whose defense minister is a former Labor prime minister (who once offered half of Jerusalem to Yasser Arafat) is the’ very definition of national unity – and refutes the popular “Israel is divided” meme, “Everyone is saying the same thing,” explained one Knesset member, “though there may be a difference of tone.”

To be sure, Netanyahu and Kadima’s Shaul Mofaz offered more prosaic reasons for their merger: national service laws, a new election law and negotiations with the Palestinians. But Netanyahu, the first Likud prime minister to recognize Palestinian statehood, did hot need Kadima for him to enter peace talks .. For two years he’s been waiting for Mahmoud Abbas to show up at the table. Abbas hasn’t. And won’t. Nothing will change on that front.

What does change is Israel’s position vis-a-vis Iran. The wall-to-wall coalition demonstrates Israel’s political readiness to attack, if necessary. (Its military readiness is not in doubt.)

Those counseling Israeli submission, resignation or just endless patience can no longer dismiss Israel’s tough stance as the work of irredeemable right-wingers. Not with a government now representing 78 percent of the country.

Netanyahu forfeited September elections that would have given him four more years in power. He chose instead to form a: national coalition that guarantees 18 months of stability – 18 months during which, if the world does not act to stop Iran, Israel will.

And it will not be the work of one man, one party or one ideological faction. As in 1967, it will be the work of a nation.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. Readers may contact him via email atletters@!charleskrauthammer.com.

Social Issues Will Now Be Consequential in the Presidential Race!

My theory!

Social Issues are not the really consequential topics in the presidential race! However, President Obama and his re-election team see this as an opportunity to distract attention from the dismal condition of the economy and his health care program.

A May 12 Associated Press article is titled “Gay marriage, abortion back in campaign spotlight“. The first paragraph reads, “Abortion and gay marriage. For years, they’ve been lumped together as the paramount wedge issues of U.S. politics — hot-button topics in the vortex of sexuality, personal freedom and public policy.”

Vice President Joe Biden appearing on Meet the Press this past Sunday said he had no problem with two people of the same sex marrying. That brought a substantial response from the news media but no remarks from the Republican Party. The White House appeared to try to evade the issue even as the commentators quoted the president’s earlier statement that his views on gay and lesbian marriage were evolving.

Everyone thinks VP Biden is just a fool who can’t keep his mouth shut. That is his reputation. The president’s re-election committee is counting on you believing that. So he appears on MTP this past Sunday and has the media mouths going.

What you do not realize is that the Obama team has accomplished a diversion. Defending the president’s economic program is impossible. They realized they needed to change the topic. They have succeeded. Obama’s ability to argue the social issues is his strong suite.

Romney’s strength is business and the economy. The Republican Party wants to talk about social issues. Obama wants to change the subject and the Republicans are giving him a gift. The AP reports “Republicans controlling the House are pressing for cuts to food stamps, health care and pensions for federal workers as an alternative to an automatic 10 percent cut to the military next year.” It’s a perfect diversion.

Jobs or Political Party – What’s Your Priority?

“Huge trade deficits cost millions of jobs, lower wages and place a massive debt burden on future generations.” –Brad Sherman, United States Congressman

Democratic Party member are not unified in many ways. The question of abortion rights is simply the most well known issue. Gay marriage rights is also another party dividing issue. However, in this era of job growth, job creation ought to be the focus. It isn’t.

In my own new California 30^th district, redistricting has resulted in two long time Democratic congressman vying for the same seat. Howard Berman versus Brad Sherman. On most issues they agree. Sherman has taken positions that have been contrary to Democratic Party leadership. He opposed TARP as it was initially proposed and, I believe, only voted in favor of the final bill when he saw the stock market decline. Sherman has also taken an unusual view of free trade agreements. He opposes them.

Brad Sherman opposes NAFTA and CAFTA because they are shipping our jobs overseas. “For too long the United States has been exporting jobs rather than products.” The latest free trade agreements are with Columbia and South Korea. His take is supportable when you look at the American trade deficit. It’s has been at or near the highest level since 2004. The amount has been in excess of $800 Billion Dollars. This is a number supplied by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

His concern for jobs is justified. It’s not just the high unemployment rate. The employment to population ratio of Americans age 16-54 has barely begun to recover from levels last seen in 1983. That number was 68.5% in April of this year. This is a BLS statistic. Meanwhile Berman is a supporter of free trade agreements.

I have not heard or read any positions taken by Republicans on the issue of free trade. It should be a deciding factor when voting for a congressman or the president.

Barack Obama’s Failed Recovery

It seems the president’s likeability has remained high even though his success leading the country leaves a lot to be desired. The number one issue facing him at his inauguration was the growing number of unemployed Americans.

It is accurate to say that the continuing increase in the number of unemployed has been stopped. The worst of the unemployment crises has passed. However, the number of unemployed Americans has remained basically unchanged. The apparent improved unemployment picture is the result of people giving up in searching for a job. Those giving up aren’t counted. It takes 150,000 new jobs a month to keep up with our growing population. (The number of new jobs added in April was a horribly disappointing 115,000.) Once you deduct that leveling number of 150,000 you see that real job growth has been small.

The one significant exception to this situation is the re-employment of people in the manufacture of automobiles.

Every country has something to sell to its own people and the rest of the world. The United States has one major export, agricultural products. Brazil has five. Oil, iron ore, soybeans, coffee, and steel. Brazil now holds 45% of the world’s steel production.

Meanwhile the U.S.A.has a $15 trillion economy but only has $1.5 trillion in exports. Worse we import $2.4 trillion in goods.

Thanks to the ever growing number of free trade agreements most of the things we buy were manufactured in another country. The auto industry and agricultural products are the only major industries that have not been entirely exported. Here in Southern California Costco now has a variety of fruits and vegetables imported from Latin America.

Not only are there no plans to change this situation, but Obama has signed free trade agreements with Columbia and South Korea.

Retraining programs for the unemployed? To do what?

You notice that Barack Obama never talks about the unemployed. No wonder, his “hope and change” have brought hope there is enough food stamps to buy next week’s food and his change never happened at all unless adding to the federal debt is counted as change.

As bad a Mitt Romney may be is he as bad as four more years of Obama? Isn’t it time for a change? Democrats and independents hold your nose.

Mitt Romney Does Not Understand American Life

If you grew up in a poor neighborhood that is the environment you understand. Likewise if you grew up in a neighborhood of the well to do that is also the world you understand. I grew up in a very middle class neighborhood and my perceptions are based upon that environment. I never missed meal and I never went without shoes in that 1250 square foot three bedroom home.

The Associated Press reports: “Mitt Romney says he learns about what it’s like to struggle in a difficult economy by sitting down to chat with regular people. But the Republican presidential candidate doesn’t want anybody to see it — and his campaign won’t say who he meets with or when the meetings occur.”

“Before I begin an event like this, I typically am able to sit down with a few people on an off-the-record kinda basis,” Romney said as he delivered his standard campaign speech Friday in Pittsburgh.

Mitt Romney’s annual yearly income is over $20 million. He has off shore accounts to minimize his income tax. I doubt anyone reading this column has any accounts outside the United States(Unless you live outside the United States). The Census Bureau says the median household income in the USA from 2006-2010 was $51,914. Arithmetic Median Definition: Median is the middle value of the given numbers or distribution in their ascending order.

Mitt Romney can hear about the issues of the average American for the rest of his life but he has never had to say “we can’t afford that” or heard your spouse asking if there is enough in the budget to pay for some new curtains or new shoes this month.

Yesterday’s issue for me was getting the lights turned on after an electrical malfunction. The initial price to do the job right was over $4,000. The final cost just to get the lights working was $352. Mr. Romney would have done the $4,000 job.

Mr. Romney’s problem is that he really doesn’t have to face the life of a typical American citizen. There is no way he can understand. Isn’t he lucky?

Citigroup Stock Holders had Their Say

At Citigroup’s annual meeting, owners of the stock voted 55 to 45 against a $50 million executive pay package, including $15 million for CEO Vikram Pandit.

This is all thanks to the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law.

Buried in its 2,300 pages is a requirement for public companies to hold “say on pay” votes for executive compensation.

Unfortunately the vote is non-binding (Democrats wanted it to be binding), but the chairman of Citigroup Dick Parsons said he took it seriously, and promised the board would consider it carefully.

Shareholders have every right to be upset with Vikram.

Over the last decade, Citigroup has had the worst stock price performance of the big banks, but consistently had some of the highest executive compensation.

Citi shares are down more than 80% since the financial crisis hit.
They’re down 93% from 2006.

Last year, Pandit got a $1.7 million salary, plus a $5.3 million cash bonus, and he got a $40 million retention package that pays out through 2015.

Getting a bonus should be a piece of cake for these execs, too, since the standard for the payout is an earnings track record half of what it was in 2009 and 2010 when the economy was in the tank.

Whoa! Don’t get too ambitious!

Look, to be fair to Pandit, for 2009 and 2010, he accepted just a buck in salary.

But to be fair to shareholders, Citi’s quarterly dividend is one penny.
Citigroup has announced its first-quarter profit had fallen two percent from a year earlier on a paltry one percent rise in revenue.

The Federal Reserve turned the company down on its request for a share buyback or dividend after Citi flunked the central bank’s stress test in March. And don’t forget the bank was one of many bailed out during the financial crisis.

Some people bridle at anyone earning millions of dollars a year. I am one of them.

If you can grow sales, boost the bottom line, raise the share price, then by all means you’ve earned a fat paycheck.

But what we can’t do is reward mediocrity and failure.

Last year shareholders voted down just two percent of executive pay plans. Maybe this is the start of a new trend.